Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mahmike7 (talk | contribs) at 18:57, 27 April 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


April 21

00:01:47, 21 April 2015 review of submission by GMTEgirl

I created the page Draft:James Richardson (businessman) some time ago. It was originally rejected due to copyright issues which I corrected. I re-submitted the article with several different references, from reputable sources. It was then rejected again because it "reads like an advertisement". I am asking for help to get the article approved because as I recently new Wikipedia creator, I am unable to do so. Your assistance is much appreciated. GMTEgirl 00:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

GMTEgirl 00:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMTEgirl (talk • contribs)

@GMTEgirl: You can do this. I have left you a comment on the draft. Edit, resubmit, understand the comments, edit, resubmit and continue. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle Faddle 09:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

00:18:23, 21 April 2015 review of submission by AshDoveJay


I now see that my references list did not adhere to the standard set by wiki. If there's anything else wrong with the piece, I'd appreciate more specific statements. AshDoveJay (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined @AshDoveJay: with very specific points. This is a borderline advert for you and your services Seriously, why do you want a page on Wikipedia? Use LinkedIn Fiddle Faddle 09:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:00, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Vyvienn

I haven't got the foggiest idea why this article should be less relevant than others that have been published (and frequently with unverified (!!) information). How do I prove "relevance"? All information contained in this article has links provided where said information can be verified. It relates directly to the article on David McComb and a forthcoming major biopic, which will hopefully create its own page at that time. To stuff all this material into the McComb article would make it huge and difficult. So if there are any actual, concrete tips or ideas on how to improve this article instead of the wishy washy rejection I received, I would very much appreciate it.

Vyvienn (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vyvienn - The word "relevance" does not occur anywhere in the review note, so where you get it is a mystery to me. Please read the review note on your draft again and follow the links to the guide pages. Once you have done that you're welcome to return here for further clarification or assistance. By the way, the fact that there are some poor quality articles among the nearly 5 million already on the English Wikipedia is of no consequence to the process of assisting you to get yours into acceptable shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:19, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Haneedesigns


Hi. I am really struggling. I'd like to become good at creating articles and I appreciate your advice. My original article was rejected because I did not establish notability. Now I am being told that it reads like an ad. To be honest, I really disagree that it reads like an ad. I have listed only facts which establish the notability of the company. The company isn't really notable for anything negative except one thing which I just added. Let me know what you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:RXR_Realty,_LLC

Thanks again Haneedesigns (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a comment on the draft itself and notified you. There is work to be done. Enjoy doing it. Fiddle Faddle 17:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:42:41, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Bodicacia

I'm a newbie and seek advice on how to make my proposed article less promotional. The subject is a model for a new kind of animal welfare service, but I avoided terms like "innovative" and "unique" in an attempt to maintain a neutral tone. Although still only a regional organization, this group has been profiled by the Associated Press and CNN (as well as every local news outlet in the area) so I thought it would be suitably notable. Thanks! Bodicacia (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodicacia: What I suggest you do is to engage in conversation with the reviewers who pushed Draft:Red Paw Emergency Relief Team back to you. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.. Fiddle Faddle 20:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:57:58, 21 April 2015 review of submission by 98.217.218.206

78:26 noted this This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Grace Kelly (musician) has a page and this album is noted on it. I created this page, Grace (Grace Kelly album), in order to have more information on a album in her discography. If the subject is notable enough for a wikipedia entry that includes a discography, then individual albums on that discography should be notable enough, yes?

98.217.218.206 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:01:36, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Tapedave

  • Comment: Album by artist which has not achieved notability (no Wikipedia article for the artist). If she is notable, I would work creating that page first. The sources are not independent of the subject, and as such the album does not meet notability standards. Needed are truly independent, reliable sources which objectively discuss the album in-depth. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

78:26 is wrong. She has a musician page: Grace Kelly (musician) My entry is an album from her discography, which is on her wikipedia entry. Please help me here.

Thanks


Tapedave (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapedave: The draft had typos in its links to the musician, which made it appear that the musician was not notable. In any event, in order to justify a stand alone article in Wikipedia the draft must prove that the album itself is notable. A source that doesn't support the statement where it is cited, liner notes (not independent), and a producer's self-published bio are not sources suitable to prove notability. Refer to Wikipedia:Notability (music).
If unable to prove notability of the album, I recommend merging any material supported by reliable sources into the musician's page, Grace Kelly (musician), and/or contributing it elsewhere (see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets). Worldbruce (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:25:50, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Ann1apt


Ann1apt (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My article on Valeri Larko was accepted in February. On April 19, a header was added describing the article as a news release and overly promotional. The article is written in a similar style to other articles on living artists, written by other contributors. Why is my Valeri Larko article being singled out as overly promotional, which it is not. I am a Professor of Art and Art History at a college in New York, and am therefore well acquainted with academic and encyclopedic writing and its form. Please explain the problem, or please revove the header/banner.

Thank you. Ann1aptAnn1apt (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: @Ann1apt: I'm not the reviewer or the person who added the {{news release}} template, but it seems like some of the text engages in synthesis of the artist's work, which contravenes Wikipedia's no-original-research policy.
For example, the paragraph beginning "Larko’s oeuvre broadened and deepened in these early New York paintings to include an urban fringe which was still very much alive and in use" reads like a synthesis of her work, as does the paragraph beginning "With the conclusion of the “Bronx Block” series" and the sentence "Larko transferred her focus to the urban core of the city’s boroughs, incorporating the topography, infrastructure, and abundance of graffiti-covered walls into her work". This could be remedied by reporting only on what others have written about the artist's work. wia (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

00:39:08, 22 April 2015 review of submission by FrozenMan

I made a page called "Inclusion Cell" because the page "I Cell" was a disambiguation page that referred to two different terms "I Cell (Gastric)" vs "Inclusion Cell (Lysosomal Disease)" neither of which had pages. I think it should be split into "I Cell (Gastric)" and "Inclusion Cell (Lysosomal Disease)". If my page was rejected, will someone please make it?

FrozenMan (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrozenMan: Why would you not complete the work you started? Fiddle Faddle 06:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to. It just may take a few months for me to get the time to get around to it.

@FrozenMan: If you're looking for an article to be written about inclusion cells, you could always inquire at the Requested Articles space. I've never used it before but it's possible someone there would write it for you. wia (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:29:15, 22 April 2015 review of submission by Duals28


Duals28 (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my draft for "Duals" page not accepted?

@Duals28: For the reason stated on the draft. Fiddle Faddle 06:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:01:13, 22 April 2015 review of submission by Chloetj



How do I specify that a page I am making is a disambiguation page? Chloetj (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloetj: A disambiguation page already exists at Mute. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:21, 22 April 2015 review of submission by Rebeccaawigmore


Hi, I'm trying to make my article as neutral as possible, so I've made sure to cite secondary sources for all my assertions. I've read the Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources and I'm sure all the sources are indepedendent of my subject. Is there a specific area of my article that's troubling to the Wiki policy? For me, the notability is in Accept and Proceed's use of information art in a commercial context and I've cited independent sources that agree [particularly the Guardian link http://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/gallery/2014/dec/11/calendars-of-light-and-dark-that-are-data-works-of-art-in-pictures]. I'm just a little lost as to which part is problematic. Once I know, I can get to fixing it. Thanks so much for helping me! Rebeccaawigmore (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeccaawigmore (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:31, 22 April 2015 review of submission by Brucenc


I am a new author. George Walther Sr. is my wife's grandfather. George has over 100 patents listed on the George Patent database including the wheel used on the US Army Liberty trucks used in World War I. My question is how to cite references for 4 documents that I have that are not available on the internet or from a current publisher. These documents are the following: 1. Geo. Walther Sr. (1954), “History of the Dayton Steel Foundry Company”, George Walther Sr., Early history of Dayton Steel Foundry Co. covers early history (first 15 years) written by founder, George Walther Sr, when he was 78 years old.

2. Dayton Steel Foundry Newsletter (1955), “The Wheel – 50th Anniversary Edition 1905 – 1955”, Dayton Steel Foundry

3. University of Dayton (1958), “A Tribute to - George Walther, Sr. - President The Dayton Steel Foundry Co. - Inventor – Industrialist – Civic Leader - 1958”, University of Dayton, Written by University of Dayton as handout document when George Walther Sr. was given an Honorary Doctor of Engineering degree by the University of Dayton in 1958

4. Dayton Steel Foundry (1961), “Tribute to George Walther Sr.”, Dayton Steel Foundry Co. – Written by Dayton Steel Foundry upon the death of George Walther Sr.

How do I cite information or pages from these documents as references?

Thanks for you assistance.

Brucenc (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. (The way you are citing the documents is correct, however.) Worldbruce (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:03:05, 22 April 2015 review of submission by Lizseach


Hello, This is a somewhat involved question, so bear with me. I am attempting to write an article about an academic, and I need to establish notability. This should be relatively easy. His research has "made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline" (he has a number of very frequently cited articles in prestigious journals, and the high citation numbers are particularly remarkable given the fact that his field is relatively small); he won a major award for his first book; and his textbook is widely used, and as such, has almost certainly shaped the relatively small subfield in which he works. So far, so good. The brief account I would want to give of his career, if my article were going to be representative of that career, would basically follow this outline. Here's the problem: Although I have reliable, independent sources that demonstrate that his articles are highly cited, they are not in-depth. (His work appears on a most-cited list and in reference handbooks.) I do have one in-depth review of the textbook, and the reviewer clearly regards the book as notable, but I have not been able to find any other reviews of it, and I do not get the impression that textbooks are widely reviewed, so that doesn't seem a fruitful avenue. I also have at least a half-dozen in-depth reviews of his first book, which would easily put me over the 2-3 source quota, but I cannot figure out where/how to reference them. If I am reading the notability guidelines correctly, the sources that establish notability do not have to be cited within the article, but I cannot figure out where to put them so that the reviewer will see them and give me credit for them. My current solution is that I have written the section of the article on his first book in such a way as to require citation of those book reviews within the article itself, but this forces me to spend extra time talking about the book, which, as far as I can tell, does not deserve a disproportionate amount of coverage in comparison to the rest of his career. In other words, my attempt to include those citations seems as if it is warping the article itself. Any suggestions would be most welcome. Thank you! Lizseach (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Lizseach[reply]

Lizseach (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Academics are something of a grey area as regards notability. I'm going to accept this and move it to John R. Sutton, with a copy-edit template ... mainly for the reference layout. Then if someone doubts the notability they can dispute it from there. Please trim down the articles list by at least half... that long list cannot all be his most seminal works. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthur goes shopping Thank you! I have gone back and cut the articles list by about half. How do I request to have the template removed?Lizseach (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Lizseach[reply]
The references need sorting out, then the copy-edit template can just be removed. Consider perhaps formatting references more like those in Irving Gottesman. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did the best that I could. There weren't any article examples under Gottesman, but I'm guessing you just wanted something closer to ASA?Lizseach (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Lizseach[reply]
ASA? Do you not agree that the text Forman, S.D.; Kammen, D.P.V. (1992). "Etiology and Nosology: Schizophrenia Genesis: The Origins of Madness". American Journal of Psychiatry 149 (10): 1401–1402. provides more immediately comprehensible information to the reader about the type and nature of source it references, than the text [10], Grasmick review.?
However, the article is in the backlog of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, and I am very confident that they will reformat the references and remove the copy-edit template once they get round to it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Right! You are talking about the references, not the bibliography. Duh! I'm on it.Lizseach (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Lizseach[reply]

20:35:46, 22 April 2015 review of submission by EvenstarNZ


Hi there, I've been working on a new article "Kacific Broadband Satellites" which is currently in review. I see that someone has done some editing on the references, and for a number of them has labelled them 'Press Release'. These links go to news organisations, for example, Radio New Zealand, so I'm not sure why they've been labelled as a press release?

Thanks, EvenstarNZ (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC) EvenstarNZ (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask for clarification from User:Worldbruce, who changed those templates. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EvenstarNZ: It is not uncommon for news organizations to republish press releases. The cited Solomon Star and Telecompaper articles, for example, are reprints of press releases from Kacific's web site. RNZ doesn't identify the origin of its three pieces. The Kiribati one is word for word identical to "Hawaii: Kiribati Signs Agreement With Satellite Broadband Provider." US Official News 22 Oct. 2014. Infotrac Newsstand. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.
LexisNexis Research describes US Official News as "a comprehensive source of major happenings, developments and full text public announcements made through press releases, statements and other documents issued by various federal and state governments." (http://w3.nexis.com/sources/scripts/info.pl?400469) That's why it's labeled as a press release.
I believed that I found equivalent matches for the other two RNZ blurbs, but I cannot now recreate those search results. Indeed, I see that the Tuvalu one is a précis of http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/programmes/datelinepacific/audio/2599448/deal-to-bring-high-speed-internet-to-tuvalu, which is news reporting. Consequently I will recharacterize those two RNZ sources. Worldbruce (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:18:28, 22 April 2015 review of submission by DMPGroup15


The article on http://people.famouswhy.com/tab_turner/ appears to be stolen from an old company website for Turner & Associates P.A. and the content does not belong to them. It also does not appear to claim to be copyrighted. The website however will not allow me to delete the article even though it was not uploaded by the owner, blocking the submission from being edited. What are my options?

DMPGroup15 (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DMPGroup15: famouswhy.com isn't part of Wikipedia, so I'm afraid we can't help you with that. You can try contacting them at http://www.famouswhy.com/contact/. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

14:19:35, 23 April 2015 review of submission by Chauncy1


How can the Wikipedia encyclopedia page "Edwin Hugh Lundie" be recognized, or referenced, from another Wikipedia page when it is referred to there as "Edwin Lundie?"

Chauncy1 (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chauncy1: You can use a piped link to do that. You would simply insert
[[Edwin Hugh Lundie|Edwin Lundie]]
into the article. In the future, if you have questions like this, they might be better suited for the Teahouse, since we deal with Articles for Creation questions here. Thanks, wia (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:39, 23 April 2015 review of submission by 66.234.239.195


My new page was declined for publication for seeming as an advertisement. Please see links to the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodega_Catena_Zapata

The only difference between my page and theirs is the number of citation links at the bottom. It still reads as an advertisement. Kaiken is one of the most respected Argentinean wineries in the world, with a founding winemaker who is also known and respected throughout the global winemaking community.

Please advise.

Thank you, Feast PR

66.234.239.195 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the article in question is Draft:Kaiken Wines. wia (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, please do not forget to log in when using Wikipedia.
I have left a comment on the draft. Fiddle Faddle 15:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bodega Catena Zapata is now substantially improved. Fiddle Faddle 22:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:12:56, 23 April 2015 review of submission by Alissa.lauren


Hi Wikifriends. I am attempting to create a wiki about an event called Jam Cruise. I have been denied twice for the article for the language not sounding neutral enough. I have 21 sources from reputable news sources (NY Times), music magazines (Rolling Stone, Billboard) and music-based news sites (JamBase). I do not know what else to edit out without loosing the details of the event, as it entails more than music performances. If anyone can give me advice on this, it would be greatly appreciated! Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jam_Cruise Thank you! Alissa.lauren (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alissa.lauren (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alissa.lauren: The article needs copyediting to fit in with Wikipedia's style, but any event that has dedicated coverage in Billboard and Rolling Stone should be perfectly acceptable, so I have passed your submission. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:58, 23 April 2015 review of submission by Mctrixie2015


Hi, please can you elaborate as to why this article was declined? I believe the person in question is notable enough so I don't think that is the problem. Is it the references? If so what needs improving about them? Mctrixie2015 (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mctrixie2015: A great place to start is by asking Arthur goes shopping what was in his mind when he declined it. I suspect he will be best placed to give a great answer. My generic answer is referencing. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. It seems to me that the sources are not strong enough and that the gentleman may not actually be shown to be notable in our definition of the term. Fiddle Faddle 17:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:39, 23 April 2015 review of submission by Frankiev138

my article was rejected for "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" im not sure what i can do to fix this. the subject is notable and mentioned as film director on his fathers wiki page. I used his parents wiki pages as a guideline when i wrote the article. what specifically can i do to get this page approved? Frankiev138 (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected is a hard word which implies finality. What we do is push the draft back to you for work, Its an iterative process. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. I'd love to accept this. but, as you see, I have no Declined it because the referencing is imperfect. Please enjoy doing the extra work. Fiddle Faddle 18:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:09, 23 April 2015 review of submission by Reidinto


How can I fix this article before re-submission? Many of the original reviews and newspaper articles and letters of recognition for Deane Nesbitt's Jr.'s music was before postings to the internet. Finding web links that would help prove noteworthiness and reliable reporting has been made difficult by this lack of web connected source material. However, copies of original documents have been scanned for posting if an appropriate location to link for "reliability" could be recommended? Walt Grealis (listed in Wikipedia's biography of a non-living music hero and Order of Canada co-founder of Canada's Juno Awards) is one such notable reviewer and his news article about Nesbitt's music is available to add credibility to this Nesbitt article. Other paper copies of notable print record are: · an article about On the Black Keys and by Ear in the Montreal Gazette (1978) · an article about Ocean Rain in the Westmount Examiner (1980), and · a crossword puzzle in Montreal Calendar Magazine (1981). Nesbitt's album, Ocean Rain, was awarded to the first five correct solutions drawn from entries. Also is available, the CNE August 28, 2003 Canada Pops Orchestra/ 125th CNE Program of Canadian Summer performance; and, Mote Magazine 8/24/05 review of Everywhere from Here CD. Current airplay with 285 radio stations now playing the Nesbittmusic CDs across the USA as of March 27, 2015 as noted on CML [College Media Journal] World Chart [data is available only by subscription but station printouts are available]. Nesbitt is also a member of Canada's SOCAN [member number 1036735] where regular stats of Canada and USA airplay equates to regular Royalty payments to him for his works. Your advice about the latest Sandbox save would be appreciated.

Reidinto (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Randall Reid[reply]

Hi Reidinto you can reference the newspapers, magazines and other publications, but you cannot reference letters or anything else that has not been published before. Please do not upload copies of print articles anywhere because such copies would be illegal as they violate to copyright of the original publisher. To reference newspapers you can use the {{cite news}} template and for magazine articles use {{cite magazine}}. Just fill in as much detail as you have about the articles; author, publication, article title, date and page number are usually sufficient. See WP:Referencing for beginners for further guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:19:31, 23 April 2015 review of draft by Rudard


I am putting together a submission for which the majority ( or rather, all) of the citations are to news articles, primarily in the Philadelphia Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer. The only way to access these articles is by going to Newslibrary.com and paying to view them, since they are no longer available through the newspapers' regular search engine. Do you have any suggestion as to how I might be able to include these references? Let me know. Thank you.

Rudard (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rudard: Deploy {{Cite news}} and fill out all the parameters you are able to. Non online sources are 100% fine. Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:14:14, 23 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Taotaomona1977


I am trying to submit an article for creation, Master-at-Arms (United States Navy). Currently I edit the article Master-at-Arms, specifically the U.S. Navy portion. I am continuously getting flags that the article as a whole is not globalized or there are too much US information and not enough balance. Recently I submitted the draft again for approval but was told that it was denied because it existed under the article Shore Patrol. This is not accurate as the two, Shore Patrol and Master-at-Arms, are totally different. I would like to still continue this effort to make this a separate article. I recommend keeping the Master-at-Arms article, but removing a majority of the information for the U.S. Navy (keeping some basics), but creating and linking the Master-at-Arms (United States Navy) article to the existing article. Another point that I want to argue is that the U.S. Army Military Police and U.S. Air Force Security Force both have their own article. Taotaomona1977 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taotaomona1977 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Taotaomona1977: It seems to me that WP:AFC is the wrong vehicle. Build consensus for the separate article where you have started, at Talk:Master-at-arms#Let.27s_separate_this_article, and be patient. Ask people at relevant WIkiprojects to comment on your proposal. Alternatively, be bold and simply perform the split, documenting what you are doing on the talk pages of both the source and the split out article. Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:49:13, 23 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Katy.Zisk


I am a publicist at Guttman Associates and my client is Actress, Model Faith Picozzi. She is very well known and has hundreds of press breaks, editorials and credentials to verify our urgency of her having her Wikipedia pageKaty.Zisk (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am Faith Picozzi's publicist and read every requirement to ensure my submission follows all guidelines. To make easier for review, here is the link to her page submission: [ https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyj9mo0c3b31hvb/Faith%20Picozzi-%20Wikipedia%20Page.zip?dl=0 ]Katy.Zisk (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katy.Zisk (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined @Katy.Zisk: If you would like to submit a draft, the place to do it is at the Articles for Creation Wizard. Please follow the steps at the Wizard and add the text yourself. It is worth mentioning two things:
  1. the Articles for Creation process is just that—a process. It's not an instantaneous thing. We are happy to help but only insofar as submissions comply with Wikipedia policies. There is no guarantee that the article will be accepted immediately, or indeed at all.
  2. take a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Writing a Wikipedia article about a subject to which you have some professional or personal connection is strongly discouraged. wia (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined for the many reasons stated on the draft. Looks like WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT to me. Wikipedia does not exist for you to publicise your client. Fiddle Faddle 08:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Katy.Zisk: We do not care about your urgency at all, you know. We care only about the quality of articles. You had better go back to your manager and tell them that it will only be accepted if your client passes our criteria, and this will happen when the draft is ready. You may have read every requirement but you have not complied with many of them. You have a lot of work to do. As a paid professional editor you need to show far greater adherence to our policies than you have already. Fiddle Faddle 09:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

00:47:01, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Stephen Singer


My article on "Joe Wallach" or "Joseph (Joe) Wallach" was created. His career and success began in Brazil but the page on him in Portuguese is not correct. How can I remove the few lines of inaccurate copy in that section and replace it with what has been carefully documented, cited and referenced in English?

Stephen Singer (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Singer: Your question is well outside of our scope, as we deal with Articles for Creation, which is when someone wants to make a new article for the English-language Wikipedia. If you're fluent in Portuguese you can edit Joe Wallach yourself. In case you're not, I've tagged the pt article with a notice that it can be improved from the corresponding English-language article. An editor working on pt.wikipedia.org will eventually take care of it. Worldbruce (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:02:51, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Stephen Singer


I created the English version of the "Joseph Wallach" living bio page under my name, Stephen Singer. I want to transfer that to the Portuguese "Joseph Wallach" as the one there has inaccuracies and errors. I have translated the English bio into Portuguese but I can't read the language to follow the codes. How can I accomplish the transfer of the English page which is already created? It is fully cited and translated.

Stephen Singer (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Singer: If you cannot read Portuguese, how can you translate to it? Fiddle Faddle 08:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:59, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Rivistaangelicum


This article is no less notable than other articles on the same subject matter. See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinianum_(journal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa_Theological_Journal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotheca_Sacra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Theological_Review

I do not understand why those articles qualify but not this one.

Rivistaangelicum (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rivistaangelicum: We need you to prove it to be notable. That is what the reviewers are telling you. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. We do not compare one article with another on Wikipedia. Precedents are never set. Each stands or falls on its own merits. Fiddle Faddle 10:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rivistaangelicum (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) It is a journal that has existed for almost 100 years. It is the product of a University that is already listed in Wikipedia. I have cited an article mentioning its signifcance and book giving a detail of its history. I have cited the Library of Congress to show the publication history. Please help me to understand what other information you would need to show its notability.[reply]

Academic journals are a specialist field with a patricular notability standard so I will request WikiProject Journals to assist with this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged the draft text into the university article in accordance with the review advice by members of WikiProject Journals. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:01, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Birkwad


Hello all and your thanks for your group wisdom. I'm looking to better crowdsource the title of the current article I am working on and have resubmitted (see link). It was stated by the first reviewer that the subject was not notable enough, so we converted it to an article about an event, though a recent commenter seems to think we should go back to a biographical title. What do you all think?

Birkwad (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Birkwad - as the article has been accepted into mainspace, let the community at large decide if the title should be changed, or not. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:59, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Ann1apt

{{Lafc|ann1apt=Ann1apt|ts=14:01:59, 24 April 2015|link= Valeri Larko

I have revised the text of the Valeri Larko article. It is in a more neutral tone and with additional citations. How soon can it be reviwed and the banner objecting to the article as a "news release" be removed? I believe the article now adheres to Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you, Ann1Apt— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann1apt (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ann1apt: the article is not a draft and does not require a review. Any editor may remove this banner assuming they have a genuine belief that the issue is solved. Fiddle Faddle 16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you @Timtrent for the update. Can you remove the banner? I believe the issue is solved. The article is lean and well cited. I am a professional academic, a professor of Art and Art History at a college in New York, and understand the needs of academic and encyclopedic writing, so I'm at a loss as to why there's problem with the Valeri Larko article. Thanks for your help. Ann1aptAnn1apt (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Ann1apt sentences such as "But it is the Bronx, which captured much of Larko's imagination, with the borough's mix of decay and vibrancy, its pockets of economic survival within swaths of urban neglect." and "Her work once again included such icons of sprawl as fast food restaurants, gas stations, and webs of utility wires, while continuing to explore the industrial landscape." are still problematic. Such evaluative and opinionated language must be directly quoted and referenced, or if they are simply the opinion of the Wikipedia editor who wrote it (presumably you) they must be removed or revised to present only the naked facts. Encyclopedic writing is an acquired skill, some of the basics are: kill all the adjectives unless you can specificically defend each one's use, never express or imply an opinion, report just the dry facts (the opinions of recognized authorities are reported as fact); Jane Doe, curator of the Big City Gallery, said in an interview with Arty Tarty magazine, that the artists recent work is "rubbish compared to her work from ten years ago".(reference) I hope this is useful Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger (Dodger67 Thanks for the advice. I'll revise. Ann1aptAnn1apt (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Roger (Dodger67 Hello again, Dodger 67. I've just revised many elements of the Valeri Larko article. It is considerably leaner, with only the facts presented. Can an editor have a look at it, and remove the banner with the "news release" reference? I think the article is as direct and unadorned as it can be. Thanks for you help! Ann1AptAnn1apt (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the new banner requiring addtional citations, several new citations have been added to the Valeri Larko article. I believe this is now sufficient, so please remove the banner. Thanks you for your assistance. Ann1aptAnn1apt (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:00, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Shee20


Hello - I am trying to respond to an email I received about an article to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. However, it appears that address is not working as my email has been kicked back to me twice. Can someone help me?

My inquiry stems from my attempt at uploading a photo - File:Bill Austin Head Shot.jpg. Peripitus left me a message explaining I needed to provide approval from the owner.

Thanks,

John Sheehan (shee20)

Shee20 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shee20: This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps! Have you followed all the requirements at WP:PERMISSION to the letter? That is my suggestion, but the main Help Desk will probably be of more assistance. Thanks, wia (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:15:45, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Betsuni


The submission was rejected for lack of formal tone and neutral tone, in need of a wider range of reliable references, and use of peacock terms. I wrote it as neutral as possible, only stating facts. I made sure to use a variety of references from major publications both online and hard copy publications. I'm unsure how to proceed in improving it. The only things I can think of are the use of the words 'well known' in the beginning, the 'King of Comedy' moniker. and the description for the Avenue of Stars. Would those be the areas in need of revision? Thanks.

Betsuni (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:41:31, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Meera Kaul


Meera Kaul (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem being posted wondering what i can do from here. if i can get a step by step that would be great!

@Meera Kaul: What problem are you referring to? Something involving the Draft:Meera Kaul article, presumably? You'll need to explain your question in detail so that we can give an informed answer. Thanks, wia (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


April 25

01:17:18, 25 April 2015 review of submission by DmitryPopovRU


Firstly I am not asking for any review at this point. Is this page really not notable yet? There is enough secondary sources and even alot covering what he does. Please someone give me advice etc. and for someone to please look at the sources. I need peoples opinion.

Thank You! Dmitry

--DmitryPopovRU (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) DmitryPopovRU (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DmitryPopovR: The thing is, what makes him notable? He's a bloke whose infancy was marred by being dumped in an orphanage. He now has a career in New Zealand. One presumes his adoptive parents love him. Great news for him. He made a bit of a media splash over it. WP:BLP1E applies. Fiddle Faddle 07:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:19:22, 25 April 2015 review of submission by NamelessAuthor



I submitted a page to be reviewed. It was deleted. Do you have the original text so that I can make the revisions?

• 13:02, 23 November 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Rocky Harris (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.thesundevils.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=207911775)


NamelessAuthor (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


NamelessAuthor (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NamelessAuthor: Since the draft was deleted for unambiguous copyright infringement, you're better off just recreating the article from scratch. Articles deleted with the WP:G12 speedy deletion criteria typically have "no non-infringing content on the page worth saving". Take great care that the new article you create is not a copyright infringement either. wia (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:04, 25 April 2015 review of submission by Mrsjomason

Hello, I am trying to put together an encycolopaedia entry for a company but I have gone a bit too advert-y. Any advice on making this more neutral would be gratefully received. I thought if I removed the detail on the individual products and maybe reduced some of the more opinion-type statements relating to the brewing process, that might help. Thanks Jo Mrsjomason (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrsjomason: Hi, yes cutting out the flowery language in the product, history and brewing process sections will help. The adverbs and descriptive adjectives (like lavishly satisfying aftertaste) read like a Freedom Brewery ad or brochure. Just state the facts as they are, and avoid value judgments or subjective calls about how delicious a particular beer is, or how extensive a particular renovation is. Let readers click through to an external link to Freedom Brewery if they want to read the five-dollar descriptions. wia (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Draft:State Encoding for Low Power

My article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:State_Encoding_for_Low_Power got rejected. Reason specified is that article is like an essay. I wanted to know more details so that I can revise the article accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkd1205 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rkd1205: Some of the material comes across as original research or synthesis of existing sources, both of which are prohibited on Wikipedia. For instance, the Background section to me reads a bit like a synthesis, since there aren't any sources cited that justify why there are three major steps associated with FSM synthesis. You could always ask Kikichugirl for her thoughts, naturally. wia (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rkd1205: I've read the draft but have absolutely no idea what subject area it is about - is is computer science, electronic engineering, software engineering or what? The draft lacks context and a clear simple definition in the introduction. The lead of an article should be written so that someone with absolutely no knowlege of the subject can at least get a basic understanding of what the article is about. It is also too full of inadequately explained jargon and mathematical formulas. The article presumes far too much prior knowlege of the reader - you're writing for PhDs but Wikipedia is actually supposed to be pitched at high school graduate/first year college level. I think the article probably needs to be at least twice as long as it currently is to include sufficient context and explanation. You can get more detailed assistance from a relevant subject WikiProject such as Computer science, Electronics, etc - whichever one is the best fit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:12:51, 27 April 2015 review of submission by Isalyndon


hi, i'm having trouble linking to another wikipedia page. I want to link to "camgirl," which only works if I use the wikipedia citation (meaning, I can't just write camgirl- the link won't work). But in the context of my page, I have to use the plural, "camgirls." when I add the "s," the link doesn't work anymore. Is this fixable? this is what I'm using right now and it's not working: Camgirls ([1]) & here's my draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ann_hirsch


Isalyndon (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isalyndon: Instead of [[camgilrs]] which achieves camgirls, use [[camgirl]]s which achieves camgirls Fiddle Faddle 07:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:07:46, 27 April 2015 review of submission by Louisa Leontiades


Hi there,

A page I submitted was accepted with a b-grading and then two weeks later moved back to draft. I have now made the changes advised by the moderator and want to resubmit. But I don't find the process to do so. This is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Meg_John_Barker&action=edit

Thanks,

Louisa

Louisa Leontiades (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Louisa Leontiades: If you add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft, it will automatically be submitted. The problem with your submission is that it's a biography of a living person, and sexuality related articles can be controversial topics. Therefore the requirements of writing and sourcing are stricter than for other articles, which is why it was pulled back to draft space. From a cursory look through the sources, they don't seem to be directly about Dr. Barker as their prime subject material; I'd personally want to see more sources specifically accrediting her academic qualifications. @Flyer22: has done a lot of work in this area, so she may be able to assist further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:13:25, 27 April 2015 review of submission by H.Johnstone15


Can someone please give advise on how to get my article submitted successfully?

This is the second time its been declined. I am happy to edit but dont seem to have any guidance on what changes need made to get this right.

I am a first time editor and would greatly appreciate your expertise.

Thanks

H.Johnstone15 (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have left you a substantial reply on the draft itself. Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:27:41, 27 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Blorange2


I am requesting help with an article on a department within a university. I am having difficulty because my article is rejected on the basis of poor references. This time I searched heavily for reference material but was still rejected. If someone could assist me with referencing it would be greatly appreciated as I'd like to get this page published as part of a larger project I am doing. I believe the content is okay but referencing has been a difficult task and the facts and figures need proving but the proof has been hard to find.

If anyone could be of assistance it would be greatly appreciated. Blorange2 (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:18:18, 27 April 2015 review of submission by GRCCENTRI

Hi, the CENTRI Technology page that I had submitted was declined due to notability. However, the page includes verifiable sources throughout, so I am unsure what needs to be changed or added in order to be accepted. Can you please advise? Thanks. GRCCENTRI (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GRCCENTRI: I have re-revoewed the draft, I have still declined it, but I hope my comments allow you to see the route forward. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle Faddle 16:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:59, 27 April 2015 review of submission by Littleiiwi

I created a page for a scientist Fred Mackenzie. It was approved as start class, but I would like to change his name from Frederick to Fred, which after more research, is the name he uses most often and is rarely referred to as Frederick. I am concerned that students and other interested in his work will not find him on wiki. May I change it?

Also, can anyone make specific suggestions on how I can improve the page from start class?

Littleiiwi (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Littleiiwi: WP:COMMONNAME is highly relevant, so move it to the name he is known by. I think you would be better choosing (eg) the Teahouse Question Forum for advice on improving the article. We deal with draft articles in this forum Fiddle Faddle 16:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:52:34, 27 April 2015 review of submission by Mahmike7


Mahmike7 (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:39, 27 April 2015 review of submission by Mahmike7


Hello,

I'm creating an article on the company "Education at Work." It has been declined twice due to it sounding "more like an advertisement." I'd like to know exactly what I can do to fix that issue because I've made numerous edits and ensured of its credibility with my references. At the moment, I'm just a little confused as to what the editor's reasoning is.

Thanks,

Mahmike7 (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmike7 (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=659540126"